Your IQ isn't 160. No one's is. Stratospheric IQs are like leprechauns
erikhoel.substack.com
erikhoel.substack.com
By definition, 1 in 30,000 people will have an IQ of 160 or higher, which is simply 4 standard deviations above the mean.
Questions that are tagged 160 are irrelevant because they norming group is WAYYY to small to say 1 in 30,000 people will get this correct. It's simply not possible to come up with such a question. They questions that get you 160 on IQ score are almost certainly questions that no one in the norming group got correct.
So no, there's zero proof that 1 in 30,000 people have an IQ of 160. There simply haven't been that many IQ test administered to the general population to determine that.
Except in Software Engineering. One day you just realize, that some fucking dude can see the problem and its solution much better and faster. And you realize there is nothing you can do, except fake the comprehension and use fancy words.
It's in a sense the same way getting As in college tells you that they are a good student, but only correlates with other factors. Einstein was a B+ student in college but obviously wasn't a B+ physicist.
GD for General Dumbiness might be good, because it recognizes the subjectiveness of the measure.
They were in fact designed to avoid the testing problems arising from varying cultures, prior knowledge, etc...
This has been proven again and again to not be true. IQ is highly correlated with many measures of success, it absolutely mean something other than just your ability to score well on the test.
They think Einsteins IQ was around 120, which they think is "Indeed very high!". An IQ of 120 is 10% of the general population. If you sort people, an IQ of 120 might be on the low end for some groups/teams.
If you put 1000 people in a room, you would expect to find 4 "geniuses" with IQ over 140.
They point to data that the average IQ in one Phd program had an average IQ of 140 "doesn't make sense".
In fact it is almost exactly what you would expect. 1% of americans get PhDs, 1% of americans have IQ over 135, so 140 is about what you would expect.
The way they approach IQ suggests they dont appreciate how a normal distribution works.
In reality -- if they were to take the take the test a few more times, they'd quickly regress (closer) to the mean -- at probably more like 2 deviations above the mean.
Just because the notion of IQ seems to have some validity and can be roughly applicable in some situations -- doesn't mean that it hasn't also morphed (by overuse, overly credulous belief in its fundamentals) into -- just another bullshit psychometric.
And an especially wobbly indicator of anything, especially at higher octaves.
Otherwise it’s like someone 5’6 saying “6’0 men don’t even exist”. Obviously you’re going to say that because you’re coping.
Jim Simons has entered the chat.
EDIT: also all you guys downvoting me have medium IQs
Focusing on EQ as a society, would mean that individuals would get better at understanding the said manipulations. In my opinion resulting in a society that is less driven by emotional impulses and more on the actual collective well-being and problem solving.
A ton of of issues on the social level could be solved, if people had a better understanding of which parts of their beliefs are based on emotions and if those emotions are worth listening to.
No, it wouldn’t, just as valuing IQ doesn’t mean people get more intelligent.
Society valuing innate traits doesn’t particularly make them more common (indeed, in a society were material success is inversely correlated with fertility, it may do the opposite); what it does is it gives the people with those traits more power and privilege.
As a tangent, I'm slowly being convinced that the majority of these recent months old accounts with <100 karma are either intentionally trolling, are kids, or somehow using an LLM to write the responses. Or all of the above.
> "OK but there are a lot of IQs. One is your traditional Academic IQ. Another one is your Social IQ like your rizz level. Another one is your Financial IQ which is the number of your net worth. Finally, there is your Height IQ which is your number of feet and inches or meters of tallness."
So your measurement of IQ is to see if someone spent time playing around with GPT3.5 and GPT4, whether their English language skills are good enough to tell subtle differences between the two, and/or whether someone downvotes you for this rather arbitrary and highly biased way of measuring IQ?